E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The hottest argument in Republican circles these days isn’t about immigration, taxes or even health care policy. It’s about New Gingrich and whether nominating him as the party standard-bearer would be disastrous or providential.
The pundits and professional consultants have weighed in on the question in a largely negative manner but many of the Republican candidates seeking election to Congress next fall don’t appear to share the concerns the GOP establishment seems to have about the impact Gingrich would have on downballot races as their presidential nominee.
A dozen of the GOP’s top recruits to run for Congress, part of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Young Guns” program for 35 promising candidates, said in interviews with NBCPolitics.com over the last week that they’re not worried about running with the former House speaker at the top at the ticket. Some are downright excited about the prospect.
"I’ve been telling people all along that Newt is the real thing, and he’s substantially different than when he was Speaker of the House," said Dave Garrison, the Republican challenging Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett in Texas.
“I think for my race, my views are more in line with Newt Gingrich, and if the base rallies behind a Newt Gingrich-like candidate, it will benefit me,” said another Republican running for Congress in the southwestern U.S., who asked for anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. “I think Newt’s a more exciting candidate; he’s going to bring more attention to the conservative cause.”
Some Republicans worry that, at best, Gingrich wouldn’t be as competitive of a candidate against President Barack Obama, and would diminish Republican prospects downballot. At worst, the GOP establishment fears an implosion by Gingrich, whose career has been marked by lapses in discipline, that has catastrophic effects on the Republican brand in 2012.
Conventional wisdom in Washington, reinforced by recent polling, suggests that Gingrich would perform worse as a general election candidate than former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. But the crop of Republican candidates seeking election to Congress doesn’t seem to mind.
Data from the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reinforces that viewpoint. Gingrich performs worse against Obama than Romney in key demographic groups like women aged 18-49 and independents. Romney also fares better versus Obama in the Northeast and West, according to the data. At the same time, the poll showed that conservative enthusiasm is behind Gingrich, signaling that he could carry GOP enthusiasm with his candidacy.
In the interviews, the Candidates’ opinions toward Gingrich boiled down to the belief that, while he might not be the perfect nominee, he’s more likely to aggressively contest the election and, by that strategy, spark Republican enthusiasm, particularly among conservatives. The candidates brushed off Gingrich’s baggage, both personal and professional.
Most candidates refused to pick explicitly between Gingrich and Romney when assessing which of the two might help their own prospects. Two of the GOP’s most astute political minds – Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole and former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, each of whom spent time running the NRCC – said the Gingrich-or-Romney effect would vary most strongly across regions of the country.
“What we’ve seen in polling to date is that Gingrich is a weaker candidate at the top of the ticket, especially in the Northeast and Midwest,” Davis explained. “Romney is more acceptable to swing voters in that area.”
But even an admitted Romney admirer like Mike Clark, a Republican candidate in Connecticut, expressed comfort about having Gingrich at the top of the ticket. “He certainly stimulates a lot of discussion. One of my concerns is that a lot of voters are apathetic, and I think he erodes that,” he said. “I would not view a Gingrich campaign as a death knell for the Republican Party in the Northeast.”
The candidates see the presidential contest affecting their own races in several key ways. Chiefly, they say that a good candidate could help drive turnout, especially in swing districts where every vote matters at the margin. They also see the eventual presidential candidate as helping to set the pace and tone of their debates. That might mean that when Gingrich, who’s given to speak extemporaneously, says something controversial on the national stage, it will trickle down to other GOP candidates.
“If he’s the candidate and he takes a position on something with illegal immigration or the economy or whatever, I think it’s a totally appropriate question to ask a candidate,” said California Republican candidate Gary DeLong.
“There isn’t any question about it that my opponent, whoever he or she may be, will try to find whatever the most extreme position whatever presidential candidate might have, and push me right up against it,” said John Koster, a GOP candidate in Washington state. “And they can probably expect Republican candidates will take Democrats and shove them right up against President Obama.”
It’s fear of exactly that scenario that’s driven concerns about Gingrich among Republicans in Washington, some of whom view the prospects of a Gingrich implosion as a matter of when, not if. And at that point, a serious stumble could harm the GOP brand. Their unease about Gingrich is well-documented; a number of them expressed their concerns this week to Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper.
“Romney definitely gives Republicans their best chance downballot,” said a veteran GOP strategist familiar with congressional contests who requested anonymity to provide candid analysis. “Whether the Republican nom wins or loses, the most important thing for congressional candidates is a close race.”
Cole, the Oklahoma congressman who headed House Republicans’ campaign efforts in 2006-08, was more forgiving. “The reality is that presidential campaigns are long and complex,” he said. “While that can really magnify your flaws, it also means that any single flaw is seldom debilitating.”
A few of the Republican candidates contacted by NBCPolitics.com citied the Massachusetts health reform Romney spearheaded as governor as a reason to give them pause about him.
“In my district, what I hear, the epitome of right track/wrong track is ObamaCare,” said Ed Martin, one of two Republican candidates in Missouri’s Second district. “Here’s the problem with Romney: RomneyCare dilutes that argument.”
Most of the candidates said they’re planning their campaigns independently of the eventual nominee. (“Campaigns can really rise and fall in a matter of minutes. I’m not going to irrevocably tie myself to any one candidate,” said Ricky Gill, a GOP candidate in California).
And still others believe that Republicans’ enthusiasm in beating Obama in 2012 is enough to carry the day, regardless of the eventual nominee. (“To the extent that the election is a referendum on the Obama administration, whoever the nominee is, they’re going to do just fine,” said Andy Barr, a repeat Republican candidate in Kentucky.
Even Gingrich supporters acknowledge the candidate’s flaws. Garrisson said the former Speaker’s talk about “amnesty” – referencing his statements in favor of allowing a citizenship process for illegal immigrants who establish roots in the U.S. – doesn’t help him. Garrisson also said Gingrich’s advocacy work on behalf of troubled mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which earned his firm a reported $1.6 million, “cumbersome.”
The former speaker’s personal baggage – three marriages, the current one being the byproduct of an affair – are well-documented, too. None of the candidates mentioned that as a concern, though. And Gingrich has sought to defuse the issue by publicly acknowledging that he’s made mistakes, and saying that he’s sought forgiveness for his actions.
And just as primary voters appear to be looking for someone who might rock the boat, so are Republican candidates.
“I think what we want at the top of the ticket is someone who’s smart and articulate and is willing to challenge the status quo,” said Mark Meadows, a House candidate in North Carolina.
Leave a Comment:
If Newt should get the Republican nod it should be worth the price to watch those ethics goodies come out of the closet from the Democrats, that should be fun to watch him self destruct while the Republican elite rip their hair out!
Looks like Ron Paul might be the next president, and all the takers and users will have to go to work and the Fed will be bankrupt and charged with treason just as in the 1930s when Representative Louis McFadden exposed their fraudulent activities.
If Ron Paul is elected the next president I will personally buy you a house.
I wish you were right. Instead, people like you and me will vote for him when he goes independent, paving the way for 4 more years of Obama. Obama, Gingrich. Same difference.
I'll say one thing...Bachmann beat the tar out of Gingrich last night. That was a mugging. Also exposed why Gingrich cant win.
Gingrich is perfect for the historically and factually challenged GOP/TEA/Dumb FUX NEWS party!
Although it would have been mcuh more fun if Palin, Trump, Bachman, Perry, Paul or Santorem where leading the pack...
That's a pretty funny comment from someone who probably voted for Obama. How bad do things have to get before you realize we need a change? Anyone - including Hillary - would be far better.
RANDY: Oh, so now the Right is singing the praises of the Clintons??? LMAO
This from the same crowd who spent 8 years trying to destroy them with one trumped up charge after another.
As for how bad things have to get, evidently you forget the state of this country when Bush left office. Things were a shambles and there was talk from serious economists that the nation might slide into a full blown depression. Criticize Obama all you want, it won't change the fact that he walked into the biggest mess since FDR took over from the GOP in 1932. Come to think of it, then as now, it was the Republicans who trashed the economy and then blamed in on Democrats.
Guess you better get used to Obama, far better than anyone else running...
Doesn't matter who is leading Obama is out.
I give you my personal guarantee. I'm bookmarking this page. If Gingrich gets the nomination, Obama wins. Period. I'll be back here to gloat in a few months.
You will be hearing these words next January" I Newton Gingrich do solemly swear to faithfully execute the offfice of President of the United States of America......................,"
Not in your lifetime..
Hahahahahaha,,,,,,,,,Newt- A slimy lil' critter
Obama has a solid voting block built-in. If Gingrich can't take the majority of the Independents, he has no chance whatsoever. Since he's too soft on too many issues, he'll never carry Independents. Therefore, he has no chance whatsoever.
No Republican can get elected without getting a good percentage of the conservative democratic vote which is mostly southern democrats, thats been true for atleast 75 years, and conservatives wheather democrate or republican will come out and vote in droves for Newt. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
RANDY: Most of those "Conservative Southern Democrats" are no longer Democrats.
You know what LBJ said when he signed the 1965 Civil Rights Act, "I'm signing away the South from the Democratic Party for the next generation. Why do you think the South is so solidly Republican today? You don't think all those racists just disappeared do you? No, they left the Dems for the GOP because of JFK's and LBJ's involvement in advancing civil rights.
My point is that there are more registered democrats in the U.S. than Republicans( the Party of Lincoln) so democrats have to cross the line for a Republican to get elected President!
51% of America think Obama is doing a poor job in the white house.
Yep, and the majority of American's don't blame him for the current economic crisis, they blame the republicans.
And in the poles he's projected to beat every GOP candidate....and Kills Newt...
BTW only 7% of the population likes what congress is doing.. So 49% think Obama is doing a good job and 7% believe the GOP is doing a good job..
and that was a democratic poll!
The problem you run into is 20% of that 51% doesn't vote. 100% of Obama's 49% does. Enjoy Obama's next term, if Gingrich is all you care to offer the Independents.
"The hottest argument in Republican circles these days isn’t about immigration, taxes or even health care policy."
If they were doing their jobs they would be debating immigration, taxes and health care and not partisan politics. The well being of us taxpayers never comes first.
This goes for both sides of the aisle and it is sickening.
It's what we like to call Demublican Asshattery.
Obama has me bewildered.
Despite the problems with the economy and deficit, he has made it his legacy to pass health care reform as his first major action. Why did they not seize the moment when they were in controll of all three branches and implement the changes to the tax code that are really needed to combat the growing debt. It seems to me that the administration had plenty of opportunity to make changes and took it upon themselves to act upon healthcare instead of acting responsibly with regards to money.
Now, it is disheartening to see that the Democrats are backing off tax changes that will affect the wealthy. It seems as if they are playing a game with this, they will talk talk talk, but when time comes for action that compromise always seems to lead toward an avoidance of increased tax burden for the wealthy.
One word. Filibuster.
Why don't they try and cut some spending while they are at it? Anyone that wants to through more money into the social program abyss without cutting spending and entitlements first is nutts.
neither the dems or the reps in office want any real change...they'd lose their jobs
We need a new political party. One that truely represents the people.
Their is too much money in politics.
Tired of being put down by the man!!
Rob, you have to rememeber what Obama inherited....His first job was to stop the freefall, and despite having control of both houses the stimulus plan took a lot of time to craft...as did health care. Remember, health care was the biggest contributor to cost increases to this country, so it was addressed first...
I hate to say it but we'd have been in a lot better place if Ted Kennedy didn't die....Scott Brown stopped all legislation for the remainding time until the GOP took control of the house...
I agree somewhat on entitlements, but what do you define as an entitlement?
- welfare? that is only 2% of the federal budget. Cut that completely and you'll have starving children and it is just a small component of spending. People are grossly misinformed about welfare.
- medicare and social security? these are programs that people have paid into throughout their entire working career. Why should they not be expected to collect. what i do think is that they should eliminate payment of social security to people over $xxx dollars income. You are capped at $106,000 in terms of the basis for payment into social security, this may need to be elevated a bit and eliminate what is being paid out.
Don,
I disagree. Healthcare was provided privately by either individuals or employers. Cost increases do not affect operation of the government.
You are talking about Medicare, which is a whole differnt ballgame. Obama's plan has little to do with Medicare.
Let's be frank here, Obama's plan is designed to mandate the lowest risk people, the ones who are healthy and uninsured, to enter the system and start paying for benefits which they will likely not need. ie. more profit for the insurance companies.
Insurance companies will have more money coming in, and they are experts at minimizin what gets paid out.
How many people on welfare/food stamps actuallydeserve it? How many use and abuse these systems? Any one I have ever known that was receiving benefits was scamming the system in some way.
It's pennies in the bucket compared to all the wealthy fat cats who get tax breaks, subsidies, tax credits, deductions etc.
I know that welfare is not a perfect system, but a lot of people are not as lucky as you and I to be born into a situation where they have opportunity present. Do you know what it's like to have a crack head for a daddy? a prostitute for a momma?
The "welfare is 2% of the budget meme" is tiresome. It is patently false. Even if you limit it to the actual program called Welfare, it's closer to 4% of the budget. When you add in other entitlement programs like Food Stamps, Cash Assistance, Medicaid, etc., you start getting around 15% of the budget. Now, toss in government retirement which gives triple the benefits of private-sector equivalent jobs and you are floating an additional 14% of the budgets. That brings us to 29% of the budget. Finally, we have to look at the retirement-program-formally-known-as-social-security, which was originally designed as a safety-net for the elderly. At its founding, the age of collection was the same as the average life-expectancy. Now, the age of collection is 15 years BEFORE life-expectancy. That is the poster child for insolvency and another 25% drain. What are we up to now? 54% of the budget on handouts?
Urgay,
You list so many things that aren't welfare? People work for pensions, government jobs pay benefits that are not entitlements.
Your a wack job and way out in left field.
Who supplies you with your information, Fox News or is it Rush Limbaugh.....
You are brainwashed into believing what the right wants you to believe so that they can "have their cake and eat it too".
I bet you probably think the world is only 5000 years old, that evolution and global warming are farses.
You can look at the actual federal budget and see that you are completely wrong. If al of your figures are true than where do they get the money to hand out to all the wealthy fat cats?
How many millionaires still collect social security?
One telling thing about Newt that I heard on Morning Joe's roundtable this morning. When interviewing someone for a job it is normal practise to get references. Whenever those who know Newt and worked with him in the past are asked about him, they pretty much to the man say "stay away from him". Now that says volumes to me.
As opposed to Obama whose references include an America damning pastor, a wife who is finally proud of America only because it elected her husband, political cronies willing to sell his Senate seat, staff who get elected as Mayor without really having lived in their city, organizations willing to give hookers and pimps advice on how to get government assistance, a university willing to hide his transcript for him and not one legitimate public sector job.
Neal, you are dillusional.... you need help.. Everything you said is BS.....but you understand we've had private sector job growth for 21 straight months. I'm curious what you call legitimate?
Are you willing to go on record and say that you are proud of the leadership that George Bush and Dick Cheney provided during their 8 years in power?
George Bush was an incompetent idiot and Dick Cheney was a pinko fascist.
And both are war criminals.
Any one that thinks the economy is doing better is in for a big surprise after the hollidays are over.
Really??? Go back and compare the stats to Bush's last month in office to now and then try to palm off a lie like that.
Its doing better than in the last 3 months of Bush/Cheney when 2.5 million newly unemployed were added. Over 1 million in their last month alone.
All I am saying is just wait and see what happens...
So I guess it is Bush that is still responsible? Can I get a date or some commitment on when I can start blaming Obama for the state of the economy?
Just comparing this Christmas Season to the one three years ago. They lost 2.5 million jobs when they are usually hiring. Never once during Obama have we lost over a million jobs in one month.
You dont think we should blame Bush for what went on while he was in office?
lahater - Tell you what in 1929 when the financial system crashed a republican, Herbert Hoover was in charge.....It took 15 years to recover. Most credit him as the worst president in history...
So if it took 15 years in to recover from the past 8 years of GOP rule from 1929 to 1937 what does that say about 2008, which had a larger impact on the financial markets than 1929..... To think you'd get out of the mess in 3.5 years is really pretty funny... Yes Bush and the GOP is to blame....and the more they obstruct the longer the blame needs to sit with them. Now if they allowed everything the Democrats wanted to pass, you might be able to shift some of the blame to them.....But, yes, you a$$holes did this.
Again, in agreement with Don, I don't see how anything could have been resolved in one-term. I said to a co-worker, while sitting in a company-wide meeting in early 2009, that this was at least an 8-10 year issue. At least. I'm also not convinced that things wouldn't have gotten worse had Obama not done some of the things people are whining about. . . certainly, some experts have alluded as such. To be truthful, I've been right on many of my predictions on the economy (including specifics on the Texas economy, after my Texan friends and people "on the Internet" flat out told me I was wrong. . . then, three of four things happened in about a 6-week span that were right in line with what I said), as well as the political climate and strategy. I may not know how to specifically fix it (and anyone who says they do probably really doesn't), but I've seen every step way, way before it happens.
There are many reasons for that, some of which have been trending for decades, and are the result of policies on both sides of this country's political spectrum. Many anti-Obama folks point to the things that happened "on his watch," so if that's the criteria that they want to use, then it is certainly valid to hold Bush accountable, since the bottom really dropped out "on his watch" (and they often point to Clinton policies, which I find even stranger after they just told me one can't blame Bush because he isn't the President!) What can I say, it's their criteria?
I'm the target audience, folks. My vote is not locked in. If "your guy" is going to win, it's going to be on votes cast from people who think like me. I'm not impressed, thus far, so people need to start getting impressive.
Newt, the Flounder of DC. Fat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to run for office son. RPE
Newt the Hoot runs to the Golden Tower when summoned by the Don. You would hope that the man running for the most powerful job in the world would have a little more self respect than that but then again its Newt the Hoot. Wonder how clean the Dons boots were when Newt was finished. The man is a walking, talking joke.
I guess we know who Newt will be working for as president.
This election is going to be a lot of fun to watch, Will Newt get caught in another affair? Will he be arraigned along with the ex Fannie and Freddie exec's? What if Romney wins, Will Republicans come out of the closets to vote for him when he basically represents everything they hate about Obama almost as well as Obama himself? What are they going to do with the wars ending, The Bush taxcuts ending, and a nearly balanced budget after Obama's first 4 years? Soft on terrorist isn't going to work well in the face of facts, Obama HAS taken out Bin Laden and the top leadership of Al-Q, The economy isn't going to work, Wall st is doing GREAT and the Government is spending hundreds of thousands less than even Bush's lowest budget.
it hard to say what reps and indys will do...they just won't vote for the messiah again
The contrasts are stark. You'll have a choice, destroy America and vote GOP, or continue on with what we have even if you don't like all the progress...
Bo you must have been asleep the last 3 years. Obama did not take out Ben Laden. The CIA and the navy Seals took him out. I cannot understand where you thinl that the government is spending less.
The government has spent trillions of dollars in the last 3 years than we have.
Wakind - And if the CIA and the Navy seals went in an Bin Laden escaped who would have been responsible in your mind, the CIA and the Navy Seals or Obama? I say the credit goes to Obama for saying go into Pakistan without informing them and taking the reprecussions of something like that as well the the blame if the mission went wrong, and credit to the CIA and Navy Seals for accomplishing the mission. You needed both, any thought to the contrary isn't a thought..
Gingrich, The fact that a man that was fined and kicked out of Congress for ethical violations is now the front runner of the Republicans just boggles the mind. People really seem to have short term memory when it comes to Politics..............
The Newter is a shoe-in! Where else can we find a hypocritical, pompous, pointy-headed intellectual that's as clueless as Joe the Plumber and has been run out of office on ethics charges? It's what America NEEDS!! A return to those glorious days of Georgie-boy and his failed invasion of Iraq, run and hide act when America is attacked and fiddles around on his ranch as America burns! The party of NO. As in 'no clue', 'no plan'....and hopefully, 'no chance'.
The question this November is, as Reagn said, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?". I do not think that Obama has a chance of re election, unless the Republicans nominate a moron. That is why I am so afraid of Gingrich. This country cannot afford 4 more years of no leadership, class warfare and deficit spending like we have had the last 4 years.
We are in decline. Unless we address it soon, like right now, it will be irreversible and our children will grow up in a world run by China!
I've heard these same lines my entire life (including from Reagan). Every time a Dem gets elected, the right goes nuts. Then when a Rep is elected, they whine that they don't get a fair shake.
With that said, this IS a critical election. The right REALLY wants an extreme right winger elected who will enact their agenda despite public opinion and using whatever trickery they can to enact it.
Romney has not been hit on the Bain Capital, chop shop stuff yet because that does not play well with Republicans, but it will with Reagan Democrats. Obama will hit Romney on that.
Plus there is Latinos. Gingrich will do better with that group than Romney.
I just don't see how anyone can say Romney is a better general election candidate than Gingrich.
What does this tell you about the absolute decline of the republicon party?
Compared to the demoncrats, still pretty good?
They both suck.
The End.
The biggest thing Newt has going against him is, well, Newt himself. Newt is a pompous, self serving, self important jerk and he can be depended on to say something that will tip his hand to the whole country. He is so full of himself that he won't even be capable of stopping himself. Somethings you can count on and that's one of them.
The GOP/tp is welcome to nominate this boob to be their standard bearer but they will be sorry. This guy has an awful lot of baggage and the Democrats will be all too happy to cart it all out to be examined by all. The moral and ethical issues alone will be a burden and very hard to defend since they are all well documented. The rank and file Republicans do not want him to be the nominee. There will be long lines of Representatives that served with Newt that have serious issues with him. He won't be able to fast talk his way out of it all this time.
Who cares if it's Newt? One horse's ass from the GOP is as good as another. At least Bachmann is hot!
More proof that the GOP is full of psychos. Do they really think that Newt can take Obama?
Obama has been silent all of this time. He is keeping his lips shut until the GOP figures out what nominee they'll send up against him. The GOP would be smart to either send Huntsman or Paul up. But they have to satisfy their 'base' who is made up of nutters anymore.
How sad that it's come to this. This class of nominees is the worst I have ever recalled.
Yep, you nailed it. Paul or Huntsman, if they really want any chance of defeating Obama. Otherwise, the Independents stay home and Obama wins.
Too much dirt for Newt to beat Obama. The dems have all the dirt they need and are hoping he wins the nomination so they can start unloading.
Isn't Gingrich a "Historian"? Sounds like a good gig although I don't see many openings for them in the want adds. Anyways...if he is a "good" historian he should realize that one day soon he will implode just as he has so often in the past...and when he does, this time he'll be taking fellow Republican candidates down with him....not that I see anyone jumping up to challenge Newt and Mitt for the nomination. Thankfully the Republicans can't seem to see that Huntsman is the only hope they have of winning the Presidency. The front running duo represents the same old lost cause of Republican presidential hopefuls. The second and third tier bunch represent the whacko fringe (maybe Newt does too). Santorum must be frothing about his chances, every time Ron Paul is allowed to speak for more than 10 seconds he says something that sinks his own ship. Bachman.....well she should've stayed under the radar and built a centrist following but her lust for the limelight got the best of her and she fell in with the tea partiers who won't ever get a candidate into nationwide office. Huntsman could really do something in the general election but the radical tail that wags the Republican dog hates anyone who isn't screaming about the "socialist muslum" in the white house.
Why is MSNBC promoting Newt today and attaching Romney? Rhetorical question!!!
They are promoting Newt today because his poll numbers are slipping and the real news of the day is that Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has endorsed ROMNEY. That should be on the MSNBC headlines.
I got $10000 that Obama beats any Republican thats out there. Just look at the party of NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Look at all the Republican Governors thats trying to destroy the Unions and make the poor poorer. But I know there are a lot o sucker out there. So Mitt and Newt make your bet.
No one believes you have 10000 dollars, just like no one believes Oblamer will win another term.
Obama in 2012! (I believe it! Prima facie evidence that you're fulla crap!)